A federal jury in Maine has handed New Hampshire-based gun manufacturer Sig Sauer a victory over claims its P320 handgun is defective.
The case involved a complaint by David Alan Cole, a detective with the Somerset County Sheriffs Department, who claimed he was injured when his Sig Sauer handgun unintentionally discharged a bullet into his thigh when his hands were not on the gun or the trigger. The bullet penetrated his right calf and reached his right ankle and had to be surgically removed. Cole was executing a search warrant at the time.
Cole sued the gunmaker for product defect, negligence and breach of implied warranty. He sought compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries.
The nine-person federal district court jury ruled unanimously that the police detective failed to prove there were defects in the manufacture or design of the firearm and found no negligence on the part of Sig Sauer.
Sig Sauer has faced multiple similar lawsuits alleging unintentional discharge but has maintained the gun meets all safety standards. Sig Sauer markets the P320 primarily to law enforcement and military personnel.
“The jury’s unanimous verdict in Maine federal court is an important outcome because it further validates the engineering and design of the P320 and the extensive independent testing behind it,” said Kristen Dennison, counsel for Sig Sauer.
While it still faces lawsuits, the gunmaker has notched a few wins recently. Last month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a class-action lawsuit targeting the P320. Also, in May, plaintiffs in Connecticut and Massachusetts voluntarily withdrew their complaints.
In past cases, separate juries in Georgia and Pennsylvania sided with injured plaintiffs and awarded multi-million-dollar payouts.
Also the state of New Jersey has filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against Sig Sauer seeking to force a recall.
As part of its defense Sig Sauer has argued that the design, manufacture, packaging, warning and labeling of the handgun were in “conformity with the generally recognized state of the art, practice, custom, and knowledge at the time such product was designed, manufactured, packaged and labeled.”
However, Sig Sauer also argued, if there if there was any defect or deficiency, such defect or deficiency did not relate to SIG, but was the result of acts or omissions on the part of others for whom SIG is not responsible including negligent or faulty maintenance, handling, use, or alteration.
In Cole’s case, he maintains that while he was walking in the building, his P320 was in its holster, attached to his belt. He was holding his jacket in both of his hands. As Cole was walking, and in the presence of several witnesses, he heard a gunshot. Immediately, he responded as if he and the departments were under attack by gunfire. Seconds later, realized he was struck by a bullet from his own P320. Cole maintained that at all time during the event, his P320 was in its holster and his hands were not on the P320 and his finger was not on the trigger.